Its basis is shifting the responsibility to the elected member from that of a government employee
At a time when we're asked to trust the Medical experts, we now have to trust a Politician instead???
so yes while Dan is elected he gets more powers, however he must also put forward an explanation and reasoning for any chosen measures, including medical advice used, which is currently not required.
Not required, sure, but nothings stopping him from offering that information freely.
The overall benefit to the community is that the process becomes very much more transparent rather than just CHO's and ministers telling you what to do.
Not
too transparent though...
Under the new laws, the health minister will sign off on an order after receiving advice from the chief health officer (which will be made public), but such orders are only to be scrutinised by a new advisory body selected by the government, and not a cross-party parliamentary committee.
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/v...29-p5948v.html
Now, I'm no fan of Lawyers etc, but when a bunch of them are trying to raise the alarm, would it not be wise to consider what they're saying? Surely if we're to trust Medical professionals for the Pandemic, Scientists for Climate change, then I think we can listen to a bunch of Barristers when it comes to Legislation.
...the barristers argued the legislation prevented proper scrutiny of government decisions.
...urged against issuing broad powers with inadequate checks in place.
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/v...29-p5948m.html
Finally, to avoid a partisan view, would you trust the State Liberals with this power? Scotty perhaps? I wouldn't.